Re: [asa] God as Cause

Dave et al -

What I meant by a "causal network" is something like the following - unless formatting botches this up completely.

A - F
  \
     G
  / \
B - - \
       \ \
          \ H
       /
C - -
  \
      I
        \
           K
  / /
D - J
  \

etc., etc. in all 4 directions. I.e., A is the cause of F (or really, the only cause shown) A & B are jointly the causes of G, which acts with B (more directly) & C to cause H etc. The idea could be shown better with more sophisticated graphics (or by hand!). Lines could cross other lines since they don't represent something like nerves, whose intersection would cause problems. The point is just that each "event" (which I mean more in the sense in of process theologians than of relativity theory - with no commitment to process theology) is caused by a variable number of other events & in turn can contribute to a variable number of other events.

& we do normally assume that time goes from left to right in the diagram. But I don't want to be too dogmatics about that, both because of the possibilities of time travel suggested by some speculations in physics and the ideas of some theologians about God acting from the future.
 
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  To: gmurphy@raex.com
  Cc: wgreen82004@yahoo.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

  George,
  I understand your point, but I see a problem beyond traditional language. I see a network looking like:
  A-B-C
  | | |
  C-D-E
  | | |
  F-G-H
  with the direction of t indeterminate, whereas the causal situation is closer to:
  A\
  B- E t-->
  C/
  This is grossly oversimplified, but looks more like the "cause of E" of common usage, even though we should be thinking in terms of the extended sequences of causal activity bearing on any effect we're trying to explain. But perhaps the better question is which representation distorts matters least.

  Now my question is how distorted my attempts at illustration will be. If they don't make sense, guess what they should look like.
  Dave

  On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:03:34 -0500 "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com> writes:
    Dave -

    For the reasons you give in your 2d paragraph, I try to use the term "causal network" rather than "causal chain."

    Shalom
    George
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
      To: wgreen82004@yahoo.com
      Cc: asa@calvin.edu
      Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 1:30 PM
      Subject: Re: [asa] God as Cause

      I think part of the problem is the ambiguity of "cause." There is the cause-effect chain, in which each effect is the cause of the next effect. This is the area of secondary causes, all that science can investigate. There is the first cause, which cannot be in a chain, for it strictly initiates matters and, within theism, depends solely on the freedom of the First Cause. Then, to dive into a controversial area, there is the matter of causation based on human free will. Like it or not, there is a kind of break when a stimulus/cause produces a human reaction. But this is interpreted as simply a set of causes too complex for immediate analysis by those devoted to metaphysical naturalism.

      I have used "causal chain" because it is the usual locution. However, causality involves a multiple array of processes or states or whatever (a further area of dispute). For example, one may say that flipping a switch will cause that bulb to glow. This may be considered the precipitating step. But there are a host of tacit assumptions about causes involved: that it's the right switch, that the bulb hasn't burnt out, that the fuses or breakers are connecting, that the generator is working, that the distribution system is functional, etc., etc. This is so complex that I hold that seldom if ever do we present the total causal nexus for a phenomenon.
      Dave

      On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:01:37 -0800 (PST) Bill Green <wgreen82004@yahoo.com> writes:
        Thanks for all of your input, floks, but I remain confused about the issue.

        In what sense is God the cause of all natural processes?

        Is there a causal link between God and natural processes?

        Thanks,

        Bill Green

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 12 08:05:57 2007